An expanded panel of nine Supreme Court justices, headed by Deputy Chief Justice Noam Sohlberg, heard petitions Tuesday challenging Amendment No. 28 to the Security Service Law, a temporary measure that freezes arrest and enforcement proceedings against yeshiva students subject to military conscription.
The petitions were filed by the Free Israel movement, the Movement for Quality Government, Brothers and Sisters in Arms, as well as Opposition Leader Yair Lapid and Yisrael Beyteinu chairman Avigdor Liberman. The petitioners argue the law was passed through a flawed legislative process and violates the constitutional right to equality.
The hearing took place under unusual circumstances after the government declined to send a representative to defend the legislation. Instead, the Knesset's legal adviser, represented by Attorney Yitzhak Barat argued that the law should be struck down because the legislative process failed to comply with the requirements of Basic Law: The Knesset and the Knesset's own rules of procedure.
The justices questioned how the court should proceed when the Knesset does not defend legislation it enacted. Barat responded that the situation was "unique and very exceptional," explaining that the Knesset's legal advisers are obligated to defend legislation only when it complies with legal standards, adding that they had warned lawmakers throughout the legislative process about its defects.
Attorney Einar Helman, representing Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, described the amendment as "a flawed and harmful law" that fails to meet the requirements of other laws. He argued that the measure effectively halts criminal enforcement against those who fail to report for military service and could even stop proceedings that have already begun, despite the IDF's need for thousands of additional soldiers.
Several justices challenged aspects of the state's arguments during the hearing, including questioning why the discussion focused on wartime needs, asking whether discrimination would not exist during peacetime as well. Other questions emphasized that the case concerns criminal enforcement rather than the broader issue of drafting yeshiva students.
The court also allowed attorney Natan Rosenblatt to address the justices as a representative of the haredi community, despite not being a formal party to the case. Rosenblatt argued that the haredi public has faced repeated legal setbacks and claimed it has never received a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court. He also asked whether, in a Jewish and democratic state, individuals should be forced to choose between "the voice of Torah" and "the voice of the law."
Justice David Mintz interrupted Rosenblatt's remarks, asking, "Is there a religious prohibition to enlist?" After Rosenblatt answered that there was, citing leading rabbinic authorities, Mintz responded that the claim was "very much in dispute," noting that not all religious leaders share that position.
After approximately 90 minutes, the hearing concluded without the government presenting its own defense of the law. Deputy Chief Justice Sohlberg said the court's ruling would be issued in the near future.